4 ms·

Part deterrent, part punishment. Consider if I punched you in the face, you laughed it off and I get charged with assault; versus: I punch you, you're now disab

• distances 7y ago
  That would not be based on day fines; fines and compensation are two different topics. "Disabled for life" sounds like prison time plus monetary compensation for the victim.
  • appleiigs 7y ago
    Right, which is my point. I think it should be proportional to the infraction/crime/damages. (Anyway, I am just having a conversation, will have to understand it better.)
    • distances 7y ago
      It is still proportional to the crime, right? Just like with prison sentence: withholding of freedom is the deterrent part, and it hurts both rich and poor the same pretty much everywhere in the world (ignoring corruption). Day fines follow the same deterrent principle for smaller infractions: proportional to the crime and treats citizens in a roughly equal manner. Compensating someone for damages, be it for the victim's health or possessions, is then supposed to follow the real inflicted costs and does not include a deterring component, thus monetarily equal regardless of the perpetrator's income. I'd suppose this is the same almost everywhere? Edit: so to clarify, compensation paid to the victim isn't based on your income, only the fines part that is paid to the state as a deterrent is.